Aller au contenu

Photo

Less pre-game customization imakes for a better story IMO

Débuté par InfinitePaths , mai 13 2013 07:28

  • Veuillez vous connecter pour répondre
289 réponses à ce sujet

#251
Guest_EntropicAngel_*
Posté 15 mai 2013 - 07:34

Guest_EntropicAngel_*
  • Guests

MerinTB wrote...

This is both sophistry and crankery that you are engaged in.  All the experts (as best as we have), all the history, all the relevant examples are WRONG if they don't fit you, the new guy's, definition.  Because you don't like the established (albeit very broad) definition.


They are wrong if my definition is RIGHT (and of course if theirs is not the same as mine). That is irrefutable.

I'm arguing that my definition is right. THAT is not irrefutable. That's where the debate (should) lies.


Have you ever had a course on logic?

Let me list the logical fallacies you are engaged in that I can clearly see:

1 - ad ignorantiam: "Arguments from ignorance are based on the absence of evidence and may fail because the lack of evidence for P does not prove P to be false."
"Beforehand, before I came up with my definition of RPG, there was no agreed-upon definition. Hence, there is no real reason to subscribe to those and NOT come up with my own." -- "And really, if BSN can't tell me what something is, I find it hard to believe they can tell me what something isn't."
Because you fail to find definitions that seem true to you doesn't equate to them being false.  Because someone doesn't give you a satisfactory explanation doesn't make your explanation valid.
Example of why this is wrong: Because a person went missing, and the police and FBI don't know what happened to the missing person, doesn't automatically mean that your assumption that the person was kidnapped is accurate.

EA engaging in argument from ignorance: There isn't a universal, iron-clad, "this and only this" defintion of what is an RPG, therefore MY definition is valid.


I don't think I'm communicating well enough. In regards to the bolded, I'm not saying that because I don't think they are true, they are false. I was saying that because there is no consensus, there is no...precedent.

And I'm not saying mine is valid as in right--I'm saying it is valid as in equally as possible as the other definitions, because there is no satisfactory definition that is agreed upon.


2 - argument from personal incredulity: "one cannot imagine something to be so, therefore it cannot be so"
"I think I am right because we have yet, as a society and even as a forum, to agree on a value. That tells me that there is no...more right version intrinsically, at this present juncture."
"before I came up with my definition of RPG, there was no agreed-upon definition. Hence, there is no real reason to subscribe to those"
"Not about the thousands of people who disagree. "People" are a drop in the ocean of reality."
Because you do not believe in something does not mean that something doesn't exist merely due to your lack of belief.  You say that (trying hard not to focus on the ego your statements take to make) before you created your definition there were no agreed upon definitions... AND in the same post say that vast numbers of people in agreement as well as extant precedence of examples of defintion (in this very act admitting their existance) don't matter to you because they disagree with your "right" definition.
Example of why this is wrong: A person who has never eaten snails cannot imagine they taste good, therefore they cannot possibly taste good.  The fact that large numbers of people DO like the taste is empirical proof that they CAN taste good, so the persons lack of imagination and experience clearly is not a factor.
EA engaging in argument from incredulity: I do not believe that a concrete definition exists, therefore no extant definition is acceptable, and therefore mine must be true.


Not so. I said "agreed-upon definition." No s there. No single definition that is considered the true definition. That does not contradict there being definitionS--because that's not what I said. I said definition.

Don't matter to me because of my right definition? No, not at all: I said they don't matter to me in determining my definition. You're arguing that I'm saying that because I believe I'm right, I think other's opiniond doesn't matter. I'm arguing that opinion doesn't matter in the face of reality. Not mine, not yours. What is real is real, and my opinion or your opinion of whether it is true or not doesn't matter one bit.


3 - Inconsistency: "Applying criteria or rules to one belief, claim, argument, or position but not to others"
"there was no agreed-upon definition. Hence, there is no real reason to subscribe to those and NOT come up with my own"
"I don't view right as a subjective thing, when it somes to things like word definitions."
"I'll just say that I view it as a solid definition of right, and I care about being on that side. Not about the thousands of people who disagree."
Because you dismiss the definitions of others, regardless of whether one person or many people agree with a defintiion, out of hand.  Word definitions, you claim, are not subjective.  And then you, subjectively, come up with your own definition.  Your own definition that is right.  Dismissal of all other definitions, because they are subjective, but yours is right (and, by implication, NOT subjective.)
Examples of why this is wrong: Saying "All dogs are flea-bitten mutts and I cannot stand them.  That's why my sister's labrador is so great!" clearly contradicts itself.  You cannot assert that all of group X is one way, and use that to explain why item 1, clearly part of group X, is not that way.
EA engaging in inconsistency: Everyone else is wrong in their definitions of role-playing game because they are being subjective and not right.  My definition is right.


I am not dismissing others' definitions because they are subjective. Where did I say that? I said that because the definitions are varied and thus the objective definition has not yet been found.

I say word definitions are not subjective. I do feel that way. However, coming up with or realizing the true definition requires a subjective leap to find that objectivity. Do you understand what I mean?

Water has a definite chemical meaning. H2O. Before we knew this, saying it was something else was flat out wrong. However, coming FROM that place of flat out wrong to say it was two parts hydrogen and one oxygen was a subjective statement, until it was backed up in the lab. Saying the Earth was round was a subjective statement until the globe was circumnavigated. Saying the Earth revolved around the sun was a subjective statement until it could be proven.

For the bolded, I absolutely did not say that. I did not say that a subjective definition was wrong because it was subjective. I said I disagree with it, I feel it's wrong simply because I choose to accept mine--there is no evidence at this moment to say whether or not mine is correct.

So you see what I'm saying?



That's just three.  From two excerpts.

EA, seriously... you can have what you, personally, consider to be RPGs you like, or what you look for in an RPG... but you cannot impose your definition as the "right one" because... well, because you said so on your excessively limited experience.


I'm not trying to impose it. I'm merely stating it.

I said it before (a page or so back) and I'll say it again, I was wrong to not say IMO at the end of my post where I said "TW isn't an RPG." THAT was what I did wrong. But outside of that, I've not been saying it's any MORE valid than another, just that I feel it is correct because we have no objective definition at this time.

Modifié par EntropicAngel, 15 mai 2013 - 08:00 .

#252
Bleachrude
Posté 15 mai 2013 - 07:35

Bleachrude
  • Members
  • 3 154 messages

GodChildInTheMachine wrote...

The easiest way to refute the idea that you can't allow the player to create her own protagonist without sacrificing the quality of the story is to list games that show otherwise.

These are all games with quality writing, at least comparable to BioWare's latest games if not better in some cases.

Fallout
Fallout 2
Fallout: New Vegas
.


I would disagree very strongly about these...For the fallout worlds, undead and mutant are the equivalent to the classic fantasy races and you are explicitly not allowed to create a non-human for any of these games...

#253
Guest_EntropicAngel_*
Posté 15 mai 2013 - 07:35

Guest_EntropicAngel_*
  • Guests

Plaintiff wrote...

Surely a Civil War Reenactment has rules, beyond "dress up like a racist and run around with a musket made of cardboard".


Dress up like a racist? What?

Alright, nevermind. There's enough in this thread, I won't go down that path.

#254
Guest_EntropicAngel_*
Posté 15 mai 2013 - 07:38

Guest_EntropicAngel_*
  • Guests

GodChildInTheMachine wrote...

I don't think that I am the one who is confused here. You have been consistently applying various fallacies to your arguments, as MerinTB pointed out so succinctly above. 

Also, you have a tendency that is very dishonest, unfriendly and annoying, which is to reduce your opponents' arguments in a way which changes their meaning, without addressing the argument as a whole.

If you honestly want to debate the merits of your definition, then you have to respond to each point of the counter-arguments you come up against. So far, you have totally avoided any of my arguments which may refute yours and instead are using rhetorical tactics to single out one part from the rest, making dishonest inferrences about the meaning of my argument based on that reduced straw-man argument, and asking dishonest questions which are mostly addressed by the parts of my arguments which you ignore.


I apologize. I'm not trying to be dishonest, unfriendly, or any of the like. I'm genuinely trying to have a discussion here.

Put your counter-arguments into discrete bullet points or numbers or whatever so I can identify them. When we're going off of simple paragraphs, it's easy I suppose to miss the crux of an argument.

#255
GodChildInTheMachine
Posté 15 mai 2013 - 07:56

GodChildInTheMachine
  • Members
  • 341 messages

EntropicAngel wrote...

I apologize. I'm not trying to be dishonest, unfriendly, or any of the like. I'm genuinely trying to have a discussion here.

Put your counter-arguments into discrete bullet points or numbers or whatever so I can identify them. When we're going off of simple paragraphs, it's easy I suppose to miss the crux of an argument.


I don't really think it's too much to ask that you simply read and respond to an entire post at a time, instead of bolding one sentence to respond to and ignoring the rest. Especially since I take a considerable effort in communicating clearly and formatting my posts so that they are easy to read and understand.

Also, I have done exactly what you suggest by posting on page 9 a definition based on the nominal traits which every game, that I know of personally, that has ever claimed to be a part of the genre share in common. Surely there will be things I didn't think of, which some people have pointed out, and my definition will certainly include a small handful of games from other genres as well which I fully accept and intend.

At this point you seem to have been inconsistent enough that I'm not even exactly sure what your basic argument is, except that you claim to be objectively right about it. So in the interest of having a genuine discussion, would you please state once again and for all, what your criteria are for defining an RPG?

#256
Guest_EntropicAngel_*
Posté 15 mai 2013 - 07:59

Guest_EntropicAngel_*
  • Guests

MerinTB wrote...

This is sarcasm.  Reading does not mean the same thing as reading a book.  They can be synonymous, but again... all of group A (things that constitute reading) do not all fit into group B (reading a book)  You can read a newspaper, a screen, a person's intent.  And group B (reading a book) might not fit, at all, into group A (reading) if the context of group A (reading) is that reading means "the interpretation given in the performance of a dramatic part, musical composition,etc"

My point is that saying "Role-playing and playing a game is analogous to reading and reading a book" is a false analogy for what you are trying to prove.   You first have to take the context of what "role-playing" means, and even if you mean "role-playing" as in "acting out the role of a defined character in a game" that still is, at best, an aspect of SOME game playing, and not a required characteristic of playing a game.  You are tryng to say that, "to read a book you must be reading" and that is similar to saying "to play a game you must be role-playing"--and therefore a false analogy, because you don't have to be role-playing to be playing a game.  Cataan, Dixit, Connect Four, Fruit Ninja... you are really putting yourself out there to say that to play any of those games you have to be role-playing.


I see. You're right. My definition of game is too broad. What I should be saying there is "role-playing and playing a game where you assume the role of a [NOUN] such as Mario, Pong, TES, or Call of Duty is analogous to reading and reading a book."

You corrected the date, the underlined part.  Instead of June of 2012 you can instead claim about 2009, at best, when the BSN was created.  This doesn't invalidate the point.  My argument still stands--you are like the Physics 101 college student who claims that you have the unifying theory because no one has created an agreed upon one yet AND you don't care about all the scientists who came before you who have added to the search for this theory because "scientists are a drop in the ocean."  In your opinion.

Hence - "You are coming across as a crank - an amateur in the field they are arguing against"


I didn't really reply to that because I didn't see an argument there. You're just making an observation on me as a person that's irrelevant to my argument.

Coming across as a crank because I'm an amateur--okay. Does it matter? Is there anything I can do about it? If not, I don't see how it's necessary that I respond.

My argument is pointing out your endless, endless flaws in logic.  As are other people.  Whom you are ignoring.  Because we are just drops of water.  Which, you believe subjectively, you are not. =]


I am just as much of a drop of water as you. All of this is meaningless faffing about. None of this matters in the real scheme of life. I am under no illusions there.

I don't think I'm ignoring anyone. Who am I ignoring? Can you point to someone specifically?


The fact that you believe that because the avatar you inhabit in Call of Duty is a soldier, and you engage in the simulation of being a soldier in a battlefield, that you are role-playing.
The fact that you believe that, because the pixels in Super Mario Brothers that you control to run and jump look like a plumber that you are role-playing a plumber.
That you think that anytime you play a game you are engaged in playing a role.  That you think taking on the role of something (a soldier, a race car driver, a city planner) means the same thing as role-playing.


Miriam-Webster--Roleplay

1: to act out the role of2: to represent in action <students were asked to role–playthe thoughts and feelings of each character — R. G. Lambert>


I'm not making up a definition. I'm using the definition of role-playing commonly accepted. Can you tell me how any of those actions defy that definition?

Your inconsistency fallacy (mentioned this one in another post) of refuting using role-playing to define role-playing games because role-playing game has become a gestalt, but turning around to use ROLE to define role-playing.

Hopefully this helps.


That is not exactly my logic. My logic is:

The agreed-upon definition for role-playing describes every game where you take on the role of a character. Thus, either every game where you take on the role of a character is an RPG, or RPG is a more stringet, gestalt term.

I choose that it is a gestalt term.

Is that inconsistency?

#257
mopotter
Posté 15 mai 2013 - 08:16

mopotter
  • Members
  • 3 743 messages

MerinTB wrote...

EntropicAngel wrote...
TW games are not roleplaying games.


For someone who just recently admitted that you didn't even know what roleplaying was until joining the BSN, I'd be careful about throwing out definitive statements about what does and does not qualify as a role-playing game.

A game with a pre-defined character CAN be a role-playing game.  Most cRPGs that let you make your own character (or party) come with default pre-builts to choose.  Almost all tabletop role-playing games allow you to play pre-established characters (Buffy, Serenity, MSHRPG, Mayfair's DC, Robotech, Supernatural, BSG, Smallville, heck even D&D!)

More than that, though, role-playing doesn't necessitate you making an original character to role-play.  You can be assigned a role to play.  Which includes Hawke, Shepard and, yes, Geralt.

Being given a character doesn't mean the game isn't a role-playing one.

EntropicAngel wrote...
You don't. The characters are set. The FF games aren't RPGs.


Again, set characters do not disqualify.  You are, again, the self-admitted noob. ;)

Now, whether Final Fantasy games qualify as role-playing games is a tricky question.  And probably well outside the topic of this thread.

---

To be honest, I vastly prefer to make my own character.  But preference isn't what defines something.  Opinion isn't fact.


I have played table game rpgs years and years ago.  I made my character.  wrote out a history, gave a name, Picked her out, painted her and her little horse too, picked out my warrior painted his armor, his helmet let me see his eyes of blue.   My friends had characters they picked out and painted.  Male, Female, human, elf whatever.  The sex of the character was as important as anything else.  Possible more important because it was our choice and having my little figure look the way I wanted was an important part of the game.  

I still have them even though they are almost 35 years old, friends have moved on and I started playing video games where there were no choices.  Now I pretty much stick to games where I do have a choice.  FA, Skyrim, divinity,  Bioware games.  Probably couldn't play a table top game now.  I've become anti social and like playing solo games with character creation options.  

No game with a fixed character is an rpg in the sense the table top games are.  Now rpg means something different to everyone who uses the term.   :)  

#258
Guest_EntropicAngel_*
Posté 15 mai 2013 - 08:19

Guest_EntropicAngel_*
  • Guests

GodChildInTheMachine wrote...

I don't really think it's too much to ask that you simply read and respond to an entire post at a time, instead of bolding one sentence to respond to and ignoring the rest. Especially since I take a considerable effort in communicating clearly and formatting my posts so that they are easy to read and understand.

Also, I have done exactly what you suggest by posting on page 9 a definition based on the nominal traits which every game, that I know of personally, that has ever claimed to be a part of the genre share in common. Surely there will be things I didn't think of, which some people have pointed out, and my definition will certainly include a small handful of games from other genres as well which I fully accept and intend.

At this point you seem to have been inconsistent enough that I'm not even exactly sure what your basic argument is, except that you claim to be objectively right about it. So in the interest of having a genuine discussion, would you please state once again and for all, what your criteria are for defining an RPG?


Part of the reason I typically try to find the crux of a post and respond to it is--well, you see the size of my posts already based on that. If I were to reply to everything in the post, looking at the interplay between sentences and paragraphs--I would still be on page eight.

And I did see your criteria. Because it was not in reply to me, I did not address it. But that's not what I meant--I meant your arguments that you say I'm ingoring. Put those in a bullet list, or bold, or some such, so I know what to respond to and not just what catches my attention.



I have two definitions, or rather, two types of RPGs in my definition. The first is a Character RPG where you define a character--how that being acts in a certain situation, how that being feels about something.

Because in DA ][ you define whether your Hawke agrees with, opposes, or is indifferent to the Qunari, it is a character RPG.

Basically, the more character definition supported the "better" of a Character RPG it is. The Witcher, at least one, allows very little character definition: you can choose to let the elves take the weapons on the beach, or you can stop them, but this says very little about your character. This doesn't tell me how your character FEELS about elves. Hence, I categorize it as a "lite" RPG

The best Character RPG would be one where someone watching you play, without knowledge of who your character is, without knowledge of your backstory you've written, could learn who your character is through the game alone. Through that interface.

In watching someone play through the Mass Effect series, I could get a fairly strong grasp on who their character is. In watching someone play Skyrim, their character is practically the same as any other person--there are a few options, but they tend to be binary yes/no options like Join Theives Guild vs. Don't Join. That tells me somewhat about your character, but nowhere near as much as say the Virmire decision, or even companion dialog. I personally feel companion dialog is the place where the truest character definition gets done.

IMO


Now, my concesion is Combat RPGs: games that are considered RPGs because of a leveling system, because of inventory, because of Sword Of Strength +1 Attack. This is where I place games like the FF games, or Sonic Chronicles as an example.

I don't really consider them RPGs, but I'm willing to make the concession.

#259
GodChildInTheMachine
Posté 15 mai 2013 - 08:25

GodChildInTheMachine
  • Members
  • 341 messages
Does Dungeons and Dragons somehow cease to be an RPG if your Game Master hands you a pre-generated character? What if your group decides that they will each generate a character, complete with a fictional back story and personality traits, and then draw from a hat to decide who plays which character? Is it no longer an RPG?

Role-playing is NOT simply taking physical control of a character. It is temporarily assuming the distinct traits of character within a fictional setting.

#260
Guest_EntropicAngel_*
Posté 15 mai 2013 - 08:40

Guest_EntropicAngel_*
  • Guests

GodChildInTheMachine wrote...

Does Dungeons and Dragons somehow cease to be an RPG if your Game Master hands you a pre-generated character? What if your group decides that they will each generate a character, complete with a fictional back story and personality traits, and then draw from a hat to decide who plays which character? Is it no longer an RPG?

Role-playing is NOT simply taking physical control of a character. It is temporarily assuming the distinct traits of character within a fictional setting.


1. No, because you're still defining that character. How they act in a certain circumstance.

2. Same.

3. Thus, an RPG.


I would say your definition of role-playing is acceptable--but it's almost the same. What video game where you assume the role of a character, do you NOT assume the traits of that character?

#261
GodChildInTheMachine
Posté 15 mai 2013 - 08:56

GodChildInTheMachine
  • Members
  • 341 messages

EntropicAngel wrote...

I have two definitions, or rather, two types of RPGs in my definition. The first is a Character RPG where you define a character--how that being acts in a certain situation, how that being feels about something.

Because in DA ][ you define whether your Hawke agrees with, opposes, or is indifferent to the Qunari, it is a character RPG.

Basically, the more character definition supported the "better" of a Character RPG it is. The Witcher, at least one, allows very little character definition: you can choose to let the elves take the weapons on the beach, or you can stop them, but this says very little about your character. This doesn't tell me how your character FEELS about elves. Hence, I categorize it as a "lite" RPG

The best Character RPG would be one where someone watching you play, without knowledge of who your character is, without knowledge of your backstory you've written, could learn who your character is through the game alone. Through that interface.

In watching someone play through the Mass Effect series, I could get a fairly strong grasp on who their character is. In watching someone play Skyrim, their character is practically the same as any other person--there are a few options, but they tend to be binary yes/no options like Join Theives Guild vs. Don't Join. That tells me somewhat about your character, but nowhere near as much as say the Virmire decision, or even companion dialog. I personally feel companion dialog is the place where the truest character definition gets done.

IMO


Now, my concesion is Combat RPGs: games that are considered RPGs because of a leveling system, because of inventory, because of Sword Of Strength +1 Attack. This is where I place games like the FF games, or Sonic Chronicles as an example.

I don't really consider them RPGs, but I'm willing to make the concession.



First of all, your defintion for a 'character RPG' is basically what everyone has been saying the definition for 'role-playing' is this whole time. The difference being, that in role-playing you need not necessarily define the personality traits of a character, merely assume them. If you try to assume the personality and behaviors of President Obama, in order to experience what HE may feel or act in a given situation, you are role-playing as Obama. That is role-playing.

Secondly, you are paying little attention to the 'game' part. Your definition is entirely based on the narrative qualities of the character, not the rules which govern its interactions in the game world. There are plenty of RPGs out there that do not allow you to make any dialogue choices at all. These games are not considered RPGs because of any specific mechanic, but because they distinguish between the player and the character, and between distinct characters and each other. In such a game, if you make a character that has a strength high enough to wield the largest weapons and in turn must sacrifice magical ability, you are still assuming the distinct traits and characteristics of that individual. In other words, role-playing.

What you have said here is that you prefer games which emphasize the narrative and characterization aspects of role-playing over the ones that focus on the mechanics of it, and further that you prefer a large amount of player choice in narrative interactions. 

There is nothing wrong with that. I completely feel the same way. So much so, in fact, that I would argue that the Mass Effect series is extremely limited in which types of character may be played. If you like that kind of game, go play The Witcher 2 right now because the amount of characterization you can form and the consequences of your decisions compare in a very favorable way to what you can experience in Mass Effect. 

#262
GodChildInTheMachine
Posté 15 mai 2013 - 09:03

GodChildInTheMachine
  • Members
  • 341 messages

EntropicAngel wrote...

GodChildInTheMachine wrote...

Does Dungeons and Dragons somehow cease to be an RPG if your Game Master hands you a pre-generated character? What if your group decides that they will each generate a character, complete with a fictional back story and personality traits, and then draw from a hat to decide who plays which character? Is it no longer an RPG?

Role-playing is NOT simply taking physical control of a character. It is temporarily assuming the distinct traits of character within a fictional setting.


1. No, because you're still defining that character. How they act in a certain circumstance.

2. Same.

3. Thus, an RPG.

I would say your definition of role-playing is acceptable--but it's almost the same. What video game where you assume the role of a character, do you NOT assume the traits of that character?


That post wasn't meant as a response to you, I wrote that response above. Still, it is not a requisite of role-playing OR RPGs that you define a character's personality or behavior. In a strict RP campaign of D&D, players would be forced to take all and only actions that were consistent with a character's background, behavioral traits and personality.

What makes it role-playing is that the character is distinct from both the player and other characters. What makes it a role-playing game is that these distinctions are reflected in the mechanics at play.

#263
Guest_EntropicAngel_*
Posté 15 mai 2013 - 09:15

Guest_EntropicAngel_*
  • Guests

GodChildInTheMachine wrote...

First of all, your defintion for a 'character RPG' is basically what everyone has been saying the definition for 'role-playing' is this whole time. The difference being, that in role-playing you need not necessarily define the personality traits of a character, merely assume them. If you try to assume the personality and behaviors of President Obama, in order to experience what HE may feel or act in a given situation, you are role-playing as Obama. That is role-playing.


You nailed it exactly. That difference is key. Vital.


Secondly, you are paying little attention to the 'game' part. Your definition is entirely based on the narrative qualities of the character, not the rules which govern its interactions in the game world. There are plenty of RPGs out there that do not allow you to make any dialogue choices at all. These games are not considered RPGs because of any specific mechanic, but because they distinguish between the player and the character, and between distinct characters and each other. In such a game, if you make a character that has a strength high enough to wield the largest weapons and in turn must sacrifice magical ability, you are still assuming the distinct traits and characteristics of that individual. In other words, role-playing.


I don't totally understand your point here, but I would argue that the "interaction" is character definition, that is, that the character interactions in the world define the character.

Combat being considered role-playing I may not have addressed in this thread, I place it in the same place as TW as in it is a lite RPG, because i tells me almost nothing about your character. Whether you are a rogue or a mage doesn't tell me how you feel about the Qunari. It can only barely be called defining the character.


What you have said here is that you prefer games which emphasize the narrative and characterization aspects of role-playing over the ones that focus on the mechanics of it, and further that you prefer a large amount of player choice in narrative interactions. 

There is nothing wrong with that. I completely feel the same way. So much so, in fact, that I would argue that the Mass Effect series is extremely limited in which types of character may be played. If you like that kind of game, go play The Witcher 2 right now because the amount of characterization you can form and the consequences of your decisions compare in a very favorable way to what you can experience in Mass Effect. 


I would like to point out that this isn't necessarily what I prefer. I'm not talking about this in the context of I like or dislike, but what I interpret the definition to mean. Whether I like it or not is another story. There might be an RPG that fits all the criteria that I find unappealing for other reasons.

I do plan to play The Witcher 2, when I can find it for a cheap price. And TW3.



And FYI, I'm leaving work so I'm going--please don't think I'm abandoning the thread.

#264
InfinitePaths
Posté 15 mai 2013 - 09:20

InfinitePaths
  • Members
  • 1 432 messages

GodChildInTheMachine wrote...

EntropicAngel wrote...

GodChildInTheMachine wrote...

Does Dungeons and Dragons somehow cease to be an RPG if your Game Master hands you a pre-generated character? What if your group decides that they will each generate a character, complete with a fictional back story and personality traits, and then draw from a hat to decide who plays which character? Is it no longer an RPG?

Role-playing is NOT simply taking physical control of a character. It is temporarily assuming the distinct traits of character within a fictional setting.


1. No, because you're still defining that character. How they act in a certain circumstance.

2. Same.

3. Thus, an RPG.

I would say your definition of role-playing is acceptable--but it's almost the same. What video game where you assume the role of a character, do you NOT assume the traits of that character?


That post wasn't meant as a response to you, I wrote that response above. Still, it is not a requisite of role-playing OR RPGs that you define a character's personality or behavior. In a strict RP campaign of D&D, players would be forced to take all and only actions that were consistent with a character's background, behavioral traits and personality.

What makes it role-playing is that the character is distinct from both the player and other characters. What makes it a role-playing game is that these distinctions are reflected in the mechanics at play.


Let me give you all a simple definiton of role-play:

When you think and act like your character and not like you.

Creating your character is not a NESSECARY  part in role play and is IMMPOSIBLE non-MMO games.
You will always have pre-defined dialouge options and pre-defined story arcs.

Modifié par HeriocGreyWarden, 15 mai 2013 - 09:22 .

#265
InfinitePaths
Posté 15 mai 2013 - 09:20

InfinitePaths
  • Members
  • 1 432 messages
Sorry,pressed qute and not edit

Modifié par HeriocGreyWarden, 15 mai 2013 - 09:21 .

#266
MerinTB
Posté 15 mai 2013 - 09:32

MerinTB
  • Members
  • 4 688 messages

mopotter wrote...
No game with a fixed character is an rpg in the sense the table top games are.  Now rpg means something different to everyone who uses the term.   :)  


But tabletop RPGs do allow for, some even focus on, pre-generated characters.  Most licensed property games.  From Army of Darkness to the new Firefly game from Weis Productions to Star Trek to Star Wars.... most tabletop games don't only provide pre-generated characters to pick, but also allow you to play as well-established iconic characters.

I, too, vastly prefer to create my own character (though I'm not adamantly against playing known icons, depending on the game and the guy running it) but that's not a set feature of tabletop vs. video game. ;)

#267
ArcaneJTM
Posté 15 mai 2013 - 09:39

ArcaneJTM
  • Members
  • 157 messages

HeriocGreyWarden wrote...

Let me give you all a simple definiton of role-play:

When you think and act like your character and not like you.

Creating your character is not a[color=rgb(255, 0, 0)"> ][i]IMMPOSIBLE [/color]non-MMO games.
You will always have pre-defined dialouge options and pre-defined story arcs.


I'm sorry, but that definition, while technically accurate, does not adequately define it as a genre.  What is the difference between a great RPG and a great FPS?  Say, Baldurs Gate and Quake, for example.

Modifié par ArcaneJTM, 15 mai 2013 - 09:39 .

#268
GodChildInTheMachine
Posté 15 mai 2013 - 09:40

GodChildInTheMachine
  • Members
  • 341 messages

HeriocGreyWarden wrote...


Let me give you all a simple definiton of role-play:

When you think and act like your character and not like you.

Creating your character is not a[color=rgb(255, 0, 0)"> ][i]IMMPOSIBLE [/color]non-MMO games.
You will always have pre-defined dialouge options and pre-defined story arcs.


I agree with you, even though I disagree with the assertion of your OP that being able to customize your character infringes on the quality of the story. 

In the sense that the Mass Effect games have a very limited amount of player choice in dialogue and the advancement of the plot, I would say that the greatest way in which you can make your character distinct from anyone else's is through the character progression and class system. You certainly have a much greater level of control and choice over that than you do your overall characterization in a narrative sense. 

#269
InfinitePaths
Posté 15 mai 2013 - 09:42

InfinitePaths
  • Members
  • 1 432 messages

ArcaneJTM wrote...

HeriocGreyWarden wrote...

Let me give you all a simple definiton of role-play:

When you think and act like your character and not like you.

Creating your character is not a[color=rgb(255, 0, 0)"> ][i]IMMPOSIBLE [/color]non-MMO games.
You will always have pre-defined dialouge options and pre-defined story arcs.


I'm sorry, but that definition, while technically accurate, does not adequately define it as a genre.  What is the difference between a great RPG and a great FPS?  Say, Baldurs Gate and Quake, for example.


Great Single player FPS;Sit back,enjoy the story,shoot shoot shoot
Great Single player RPG:Sit back,make decisions to the story:stab stab stab(or shoot shoot shoot if it's SF)

EDIT:Joke aside,let me clarify:
In RPG you think like your character and make decision that your character would make in these circumstances.

Modifié par HeriocGreyWarden, 15 mai 2013 - 09:45 .

#270
MerinTB
Posté 15 mai 2013 - 09:49

MerinTB
  • Members
  • 4 688 messages

EntropicAngel wrote...
Miriam-Webster--Roleplay

1: to act out the role of2: to represent in action <students were asked to role–playthe thoughts and feelings of each character — R. G. Lambert>


I'm not making up a definition. I'm using the definition of role-playing commonly accepted. Can you tell me how any of those actions defy that definition?

MerinTB wrote...
Your inconsistency fallacy (mentioned this one in another post) of refuting using role-playing to define role-playing games because role-playing game has become a gestalt, but turning around to use ROLE to define role-playing.


That is not exactly my logic. My logic is:

The agreed-upon definition for role-playing describes every game where you take on the role of a character.

(...)

Is that inconsistency?

Yes

You are doing it.  Again.

You will not accept established definitions of role-playing game because there's not universal consensus.
But you turn around and use a dictionary defintion of role-playing.

THAT is inconsistency.  

You accept a dictionary defintion of role-play, using it as an example, even though that definition is NOT universal.  But you won't accept similar dictionary definitions of role-playing game.

You ignore consensus (albeit not universal) on role-playing game.  You blatantly state that since it is not agreed to by everyone, that the number of people who DO hold it is irrelevant.  You do not care how many people agree, only in your definition, because words are not defined subjectively.  AND THEN you use dictionary definitions of another word, even when the definition you quote is not universally accepted, AND EVEN defend your usage by saying you are just "using the accepted defintion."

You cannot have it both ways.  This is inconsistency.

EITHER
You accept general consensus and established definitions as viable
OR
You reject consensus on word definitions as they are subjective because how many people agree is irrelevant.

Those are DIAMETRICALLY OPPOSED STANCES.

role-playing game: A game in which players assume the roles of characters and act out fantastical adventures, the outcomes of which are partially determined by chance, as by the roll of dice.

Do you accept that?

A role-playing game (RPG and sometimes roleplaying game) is a game in which players assume the roles of characters in a fictional setting. Players take responsibility for acting out these roles within a narrative, either through literal acting or through a process of structured decision-making or character development. Actions taken within many games succeed or fail according to a formal system of rules and guidelines.

There are several forms of RPG. The original form, sometimes called the tabletop RPG, is conducted through discussion, whereas in live action role-playing games (LARP) players physically perform their characters' actions. In both of these forms, an arranger called a game master (GM) usually decides on the rules and setting to be used and acts as referee, while each of the other players plays the role of a single character.

Several varieties of RPG also exist in electronic media, such as multi-player text-based MUDs and their graphics-based successors, massively multiplayer online role-playing games (MMORPGs). Role-playing games also include single-player offline role-playing video games in which players control a character or team who undertake quests, and may include capabilities that advance using statistical mechanics. These games often share settings and rules with tabletop RPGs, but emphasize character advancement more than collaborative storytelling

Do you accept that?  Because wikipedia is exactly what you say you are both ACCEPTING and REJECTING, as you deem fit for your argument.  It is that group of people agreeing that are insignificant as people are drops and word definitions are not subjective, but it is also a site that creates an agreed upon definition through common acceptance.

Either you accept consensus as a source of definition, or you reject it as subjective.  Doing both, as you have, is what the inconsisteny fallacy is.

Modifié par MerinTB, 15 mai 2013 - 09:52 .

#271
Guest_EntropicAngel_*
Posté 15 mai 2013 - 10:31

Guest_EntropicAngel_*
  • Guests

MerinTB wrote...

Yes

You are doing it.  Again.

You will not accept established definitions of role-playing game because there's not universal consensus.
But you turn around and use a dictionary defintion of role-playing.

THAT is inconsistency.

You accept a dictionary defintion of role-play, using it as an example, even though that definition is NOT universal.  But you won't accept similar dictionary definitions of role-playing game.

You ignore consensus (albeit not universal) on role-playing game.  You blatantly state that since it is not agreed to by everyone, that the number of people who DO hold it is irrelevant.  You do not care how many people agree, only in your definition, because words are not defined subjectively.  AND THEN you use dictionary definitions of another word, even when the definition you quote is not universally accepted, AND EVEN defend your usage by saying you are just "using the accepted defintion."

You cannot have it both ways.  This is inconsistency.

EITHER
You accept general consensus and established definitions as viable
OR
You reject consensus on word definitions as they are subjective because how many people agree is irrelevant.

Those are DIAMETRICALLY OPPOSED STANCES.

role-playing game: A game in which players assume the roles of characters and act out fantastical adventures, the outcomes of which are partially determined by chance, as by the roll of dice.

Do you accept that?

A role-playing game (RPG and sometimes roleplaying game) is a game in which players assume the roles of characters in a fictional setting. Players take responsibility for acting out these roles within a narrative, either through literal acting or through a process of structured decision-making or character development. Actions taken within many games succeed or fail according to a formal system of rules and guidelines.

There are several forms of RPG. The original form, sometimes called the tabletop RPG, is conducted through discussion, whereas in live action role-playing games (LARP) players physically perform their characters' actions. In both of these forms, an arranger called a game master (GM) usually decides on the rules and setting to be used and acts as referee, while each of the other players plays the role of a single character.

Several varieties of RPG also exist in electronic media, such as multi-player text-based MUDs and their graphics-based successors, massively multiplayer online role-playing games (MMORPGs). Role-playing games also include single-player offline role-playing video games in which players control a character or team who undertake quests, and may include capabilities that advance using statistical mechanics. These games often share settings and rules with tabletop RPGs, but emphasize character advancement more than collaborative storytelling

Do you accept that?  Because wikipedia is exactly what you say you are both ACCEPTING and REJECTING, as you deem fit for your argument.  It is that group of people agreeing that are insignificant as people are drops and word definitions are not subjective, but it is also a site that creates an agreed upon definition through common acceptance.

Either you accept consensus as a source of definition, or you reject it as subjective.  Doing both, as you have, is what the inconsisteny fallacy is.


The reason I don't, or wouldn't have thought, that's inconsistency is because I wasn't aware that there was NOT consensus on what role-playing means. I thought role-playing was a term everyone has consensus on.

This is new information, that role-playing is a term without consensus. This puts things in a different light.

#272
GodChildInTheMachine
Posté 15 mai 2013 - 10:37

GodChildInTheMachine
  • Members
  • 341 messages
Yeah, there are enough subtly differing 'dictionary definitions' of what role-playing is to make a wild variance in this context.

That is why I keep trying to push the mechanics side, because it allows for a clear definition of the genre which includes (hopefully) everything previously considered to be an RPG, while making a clear boundary line that disqualifies most everything which is CLEARLY not an RPG.

#273
Guest_EntropicAngel_*
Posté 15 mai 2013 - 10:37

Guest_EntropicAngel_*
  • Guests

GodChildInTheMachine wrote...

That post wasn't meant as a response to you, I wrote that response above. Still, it is not a requisite of role-playing OR RPGs that you define a character's personality or behavior. In a strict RP campaign of D&D, players would be forced to take all and only actions that were consistent with a character's background, behavioral traits and personality.

What makes it role-playing is that the character is distinct from both the player and other characters.
What makes it a role-playing game is that these distinctions are reflected in the mechanics at play.


1. This is why I try not to respond to things that aren't to me.
2. Debatable. I would argue that it is necessary for an RPG, but we've already been down that road.
3. Now, this is the interesting part, because "consistent" allows for quite a bit of leeway. You could probably justify both sides of an issue based solely on the background, behavioral traits, and personality of a character. A lawful good might not work with Cerberus because lawful...but on the other hand the Alliance is doing nothing, a "good" character would not simply let colonists get abducted.

There's a give and take there, and it's in the hands of the player to determine how far they go with that.

#274
Guest_EntropicAngel_*
Posté 15 mai 2013 - 10:39

Guest_EntropicAngel_*
  • Guests

GodChildInTheMachine wrote...

Yeah, there are enough subtly differing 'dictionary definitions' of what role-playing is to make a wild variance in this context.

That is why I keep trying to push the mechanics side, because it allows for a clear definition of the genre which includes (hopefully) everything previously considered to be an RPG, while making a clear boundary line that disqualifies most everything which is CLEARLY not an RPG.


Well it looks like I'll have to re-think my logical pathways.

On the topic of mechanics...can something be an RPG in your opinion PURELY because of mechanics? Something like the FF games?

Was that you a couple pages back where we were discussing whether FF games are RPGs or not?

#275
Sylvius the Mad
Posté 15 mai 2013 - 10:57

Sylvius the Mad
  • Members
  • 24 112 messages

MerinTB wrote...

But tabletop RPGs do allow for, some even focus on, pre-generated characters.  Most licensed property games.  From Army of Darkness to the new Firefly game from Weis Productions to Star Trek to Star Wars.... most tabletop games don't only provide pre-generated characters to pick, but also allow you to play as well-established iconic characters.

Right.  But in the run of play, those games also don't tell you you're doing it wrong, or make your character behave differently from what you intended.

Tabletop games work with pre-generated characters because of the freedom available in the actual roleplaying of tabletop games.

Without that freedom, the player is forced to do far more metacognition to work out exactly why his character is saying one of the pre-written responses, or why he's completing a quest in one of only two available ways.  This is where pre-generated characters fail in CRPGs, because they tend not to allow that metacognitive work (or they allow it, only to contradict it later).
Retourner dans The Lobby (Off Topic)


  1. The BioWare Forum
  2. → BioWare
  3. → Archived
  4. → The Lobby (Off Topic)